دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 23939
عنوان فارسی مقاله

ارتباط بین وابستگی های مکانی و حرکت بازنشستگی جوامع منطقه ای کوچک به چمنزارهای کانادا

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
23939 2013 10 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
The relationship between place ties and moves to small regional retirement communities on the Canadian prairies
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Geoforum, Volume 45, March 2013, Pages 230–239

کلمات کلیدی
تصمیم گیری - تجزیه و تحلیل کیفی - دوره زندگی
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله ارتباط بین وابستگی های مکانی و حرکت بازنشستگی جوامع منطقه ای کوچک به چمنزارهای کانادا

چکیده انگلیسی

The primary objective of this article is to further our understanding of the importance of place ties on the processes of migration to small regional retirement communities in a region with a cold climate (i.e., Manitoba’s Interlake). A two-stage survey design includes (i) a interview survey of a non-probability sample of 34 recent older movers to the retirement communities and (ii) in-depth life-history interviews with nine of these movers. The analysis of data involves the use of both descriptive statistical techniques and qualitative methods. The findings disclose that place ties associated with the destination community play a major role in the senior’s decision to move. While previous place experience and personal contacts represent important factors in the relocation process, they may also be used to promote population growth, community sustainability, and regional competitiveness

مقدمه انگلیسی

It has been observed that: “very few countries in today’s world are actively getting ‘younger’ in terms of their age profiles; the dominant world trend is towards an aging society in which elderly populations are not only growing in size but are also growing as a share of the total population” (Macey et al., 2003, 520). In Canada, the number of seniors aged 65 years and over surpassed the four million mark for the first time in 2006, with their proportion of the total population increasing from 13.0% in 2001 to 13.7% in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2007) to 14.8% in 2011 (Statistics Canada, 2012a). Moreover, the fastest growing age group between 2001 and 2006 was the 55–64 years cohort which included many individuals nearing retirement (Statistics Canada, 2007). Retirement often prompts a desire to change home, and in many cases the appeal of a simplified life in a smaller rural or semi-rural community may become the focus of future plans (Walters, 2000 and Brown and Glasgow, 2008). The broad aim of this paper is to further our understanding of the importance of place ties on the processes of migration to small regional retirement communities on the Canadian prairies.1 The work presented in this article is based on a wider investigation of the processes and outcomes of the migration of older people to small western lakeshore communities in the Interlake region of Manitoba. There are a couple of reasons why these communities offer an ideal study area for exploratory research on the migration of seniors to Canadian regional retirement communities. First, our study area clearly has a highly truncated population in terms of age distribution, with a large percentage in the older cohorts (Statistics Canada, 2012b, Statistics Canada, 2012c and Statistics Canada, 2012d). Further, the communities comprising our study area have developed as popular “retirement resorts” for both permanent and seasonal migrants. Thus, our research develops knowledge about this phenomenon on the Canadian prairies. This paper commences by presenting the background literature and conceptual framework of the present study. A profile of the study area is next outlined followed by an explanation of the methodology and survey stages. The results of the analysis of the paper are then presented in detail, while the paper concludes with a discussion of the research findings and their implications.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

7.1. The decision to move to small prairie lakeshore retirement communities Based on data gathered in the main interview survey (survey stage one) with a sample of 34 older migrants, selected characteristics of these respondents appear in Table 1. The data revealed that the majority of sample members were relatively “youthful”, that is 55–64 years of age. In addition, the sample typically included relatively healthy seniors who were married with more than one child. Approximately two-thirds of the sample recorded annual incomes in excess of $30,000 per year, suggesting that the sample was moderately affluent. Further, most sample members had not moved very far, having been born and living near the community to which they subsequently moved to in old age. These migration patterns were encouraged by strong family ties within Manitoba. The nearest child of six respondents lived in the study area, while the nearest child of 23 respondents lived in Winnipeg. Further, approximately two-thirds of the respondents’ children resided in Manitoba. Three-quarters of the sample members were retired, thus appearing to follow the conventional sequence of retirement followed by an amenity move (Haas and Serow, 1993). For the remaining sample members, an “inverted” retirement migration sequence typically occurred where a later life move was followed a few years later by retirement (Haas and Serow, 1993). Additionally, respondents appeared to live a relatively active lifestyle as evidenced by their general vacation patterns over the previous 10 years. While these vacations were taken primarily to visit friends and/or family, for four respondents they were characterized by longer-term snowbirding typically in the US Sun Belt.The life-history interview (survey stage 2) data revealed similar conventional life-course stages through which the respondents proceeded (such as the completion of formal education, child-bearing, and retirement). However, individuals differed with regard to the number of residential moves made throughout the life course, and the amount of previous place experience they had had with the study area. In order to address our research objectives, respondents were asked which of the following were “more important” in their decision to move to their current residence: (1) features of their previous residence (push factors); (2) features of their current residence (pull factors); (3) neither features of their previous residence or current residence. Twenty-three respondents (64.6%) reported that pull factors were more important than push factors in their decision to move to their current residence. Conversely, only one respondent reported that push factors were more important. The results of the remaining analysis of data used to address our research objectives will be presented. Table 2 presents the numbers of citations of push factors. Characteristics of the general neighborhood/community environment (e.g. isolation, lack of activities, changing population characteristics) and dwelling/property characteristics (e.g. house and yard too large and requiring too much maintenance) were the most commonly cited sets of push factors, registering 14 and 13 citations respectively.In relation to the main interview survey, Table 3 presents frequencies of citations of pull factors. The table indicates that the sets of pull factors are determined on the basis of no fewer than 121 citations. The most frequently cited factors by both our sample as a whole and by our four longer-term snowbirds include the availability of services and facilities (e.g. Johnson Memorial Hospital in Gimli), general neighborhood/community environment (e.g. the resort setting, activities for seniors, small-town atmosphere, closeness to nature, and peaceful and slower-paced community), location of friends and/or family, and dwelling/property characteristics. Examples of dwelling/property characteristics acting as pull factors for migrants were expressed by both Monica (57 years old) and Nancy (79 years old) in their life histories interviews. In particular, both respondents were strongly attracted by the yards at their new residences which thus represented a major pull factor.Pull factors associated with migration decisions are often related to the attachments that people develop through their experiences with place. For instance, McHugh (1984) and Watkins (1990) noted that attachments with places are based on factors such as the location of friends and relatives, and vacationing and travel patterns. In this study, many respondents developed attachments with the study area over a considerable time-period prior to the move through visitation. In relation to the present study, knowledge and familiarity with places in the study area obtained through previous experience likewise served as a strong pull for some older migrants. For example, one respondent, Helen (55 years old), who lived in Sandy Hook, stated in her main interview survey, “We…we have been like I have been a Winnipeg Beach summer person since the year I was born, and…we have had a family cottage here so I’m very familiar with the area and when we…before we decided to move out here we found a cottage because we didn’t care for…co-habiting in the cottage with my sister and her husband just, just too many people and it never works so we took it upon ourselves to buy our own cottage in Winnipeg Beach and…started coming down a lot more often. Then we went for a couple of drives, my husband was golfing and…we were driving around Sandy Hook golf course and before I knew what had happened we had bought a lot, and I said ‘you know in 10 or 15 years we can consider maybe building a house on this lot and we could retire out here’. So having said that…almost immediately my husband talked me into selling our house in the city (Winnipeg) because we were both excited about moving out here, and…so we decided I just said ‘if we can if we can get the price that we should be getting for our house in the city I’ll agree to move anytime’.” Table 3 discloses that “proximity to larger centers” received eight citations as a pull factor by respondents in the main interview survey. However, when asked directly about the influence of Winnipeg and/or Selkirk, 24 respondents (70.5%) felt that their close proximity to the study area was an important decision-making factor. The most frequently cited reasons for the importance of the centers included the close proximity that they afforded to friends and/or family, shopping facilities, medical professionals, employment opportunities, and their familiarity to respondents. The responses elicited by the life histories interview survey further underscore the importance of previous place experience on the migration decision-making process. In her life histories interview, Helen, who had vacationed in the study area since she was a child, indicated that her previous experience with Winnipeg Beach made her move to Sandy Hook in 2001 easier than it would have been otherwise because of: “…and such a comfort level with knowing where everything is and…you know, if we’re going to live in a community outside of Winnipeg, this is where we want to live cause it’s, it’s so familiar it’s almost like home. It was like home before we moved here, yeah so.” Frank (57 years old), who had previous vacation experience with Gimli, dating back to when he was a child, noted in his life histories interview, “I had made a comment to my wife, I remember this, I said ‘this would be a nice little community to retire to’ not really thinking twenty years later you would be doing that but I’ve always, that, that comment had always stuck with me.” Clearly, previous place experience, or the knowledge and familiarity with an area one obtains through such experience, can operate as a strong pull factor for seniors in the migration decision-making process. Clearly, previous place experience, or the knowledge and familiarity with an area one obtains through such experience, can operate as a strong pull factor for migrants in the migration decision-making process. However, one’s previous place experience with an area may also deter migration. For example, one respondent, Holly, lived in Gimli in 1968 for 1 year, 34 years before her move to Winnipeg Beach in 2002. When asked in her Stage 2 interview what was her least favorite community of residence and why, Holly cited Gimli. In her words, “…I would probably have to say, oh Gimli! Yes, definitely Gimli…I like the area but…it was very different til now. Like there was no, there wasn’t shops there much or anything and it was just like…people, like…I like my neighbours and stuff but I don’t like people being in and out of my house all the time and a lot of the people, and I don’t know if you’ll find this, but, we’ve met a lot of air force people that have been used to living in communal living kind of, and they just, like will walk into your house and stuff like that and I don’t like that type of thing. So Gimli the least. But now, Gimli has changed so it wouldn’t, it wouldn’t be that situation now…Yeah, and it wasn’t really air force it was just that, ah, everybody lived on the air force because those places were empty and so everybody that worked at Saunders, most of them kept their Winnipeg homes and lived up there rented, so it got to be. And of course we were younger, I was expecting my first baby so I wasn’t drinking or anything so…” Thus, Holly’s previous experience with Gimli might have discouraged her from moving back to the study area in 2002. However, new experiences may also influence migration behavior and reversing negative impressions based on previous place experience with an area. When discussing the importance of having previous knowledge of a community before deciding to move there, Holly stated in her Stage 2 interview, “Well I think it’s important either to visit there or have information through other people. Like the reason, that we didn’t really visit here that much but Jim’s (husband’s) brother told us a lot of things that were going on here and…how people were moving in and retiring here so we thought, you know, we might be, he thought we’d be happy here and that we’d be closer to him and closer to, like his mother-in-law, his mom, and stuff like that. So we really didn’t visit a lot, we did come a couple of times and drive around, drove around Gimli, and we hadn’t been here for quite few years so, I mean, even though we lived up here late, before that, probably, it’s a good thing we did drive around because we might not have come here if we didn’t drive around to see how it has grown, yeah.” In relation to both push and pull factors, we were interested in the identities and roles of family and friends involved in the decision to move to a residence in the study area. Based on data elicited from the main interview survey, no fewer than 29 of the 34 respondents indicated that relatives and friends had been involved in the decision to move. The data presented in Table 4 disclose that the most frequently cited individual involved in the decision to move to the study area was the respondent’s spouse. Other family members, such as in-laws and siblings, together with friends were cited to a much lesser degree. However, it is notable that there were 13 citations of input from friends and family already living in the study area and who were sometimes visited. Therefore, the locations of family and friends appear to represent an important pull factor regarding the decision to move and in some cases, promote the development of place ties with different locations.7.2. Processes of relocation to small prairie lakeshore retirement communities Based on the main interview survey, Table 5 summarizes the information sources about the study area that were cited by respondents in the main interview survey. Respondents learned about the study area in a number of ways including previous place experience with the area (20 citations), and contacts with friends and/or family living in the study area (20 citations). Less commonly cited sources include information from relevant publications and the use of real estate agents. For example, Greg explained how he learned about the study area: “Because we would come visit our friends here, and a, we, we’d been coming for a number of years and they always told us what they were doing and some of which we weren’t doing in Winnipeg so, so we a, we were kind of envious of them. They were, they seemed to have activities going all year round”. In general, the findings indicate that previous place experience in the study area was a major source of information for older migrants. However, it is noteworthy that the amount of previous place experience varied considerably among our respondents.We were also interested in the migrant’s evolving attachments and relationships with places in the study area throughout the past 10 years. Fifty-two percent of respondents reported having vacationed in places in the study area over the 10-year period immediately prior to the permanent move (Table 6), with 17.5% reporting at least 25 vacation visits. One-half of the sample had taken a vacation in the study area at least twice a year, although most visits were 3 days or less. Respondents had previously visited the area for a number of vacation-related reasons including leisure, recreation and relaxation, visiting family and/or friends, ownership of a cottage, and scouting out properties for retirement. In contrast, nine respondents (26.4%) had absolutely no direct contact with the study area prior to the move.Our research objectives also address the search for a destination prior to moving. Based on data elicited by the main interview survey and the life histories interview survey, we found that one of the major inputs to the search spaces of migrants is the previous place experience that they had with the study area. However, the nature of the previous experience with the study area varied considerably among our respondents. For example, Holly (63 years old) lived in Gimli for 1 year in the 1960s which proved to be an unpleasant experience for her. Holly had moved to Gimli at this time because her husband, Jim, was transferred there by his employer. Ian (58 years old), on the other hand, had been preparing his retirement home in Sandy Hook for 15 years before moving there, although he was not retired at the time of the move. Brenda (60 years old) had no direct contact with Gimli or Winnipeg Beach, with the exception of living for less than 1 year in Gimli during the early 1960s. However, she subsequently moved to Winnipeg Beach because it reminded her of parts of British Columbia. Monica, who had vacationed in Winnipeg Beach at the family cottage since she was a child, indicated that she had always intended to move to Winnipeg Beach in order to retire. The scope of the destination search space of older people may be impacted upon by a number of factors. Respondents to the main interview survey were asked about their consideration of alternative communities at the time the decision to move was made. Almost one-half (sixteen respondents) did not consider moving anywhere other than the study area. Using terminology proposed by Cuba (1991), these respondents are referred to as “destination specific migrants”. All of the other respondents considered locations outside their current town of residence and are thus termed “destination search migrants” (Cuba, 1991). However, 14 of these 18 respondents did not consider moving to another province, while the other four cited alternative potential destination communities in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. Our destination search migrants considered moving to alternative communities for a number of reasons, including factors associated with the general aspects of the neighborhood/community environment, presence of amenities, and closeness to friends and/or family. Receiving fewer citations were dwelling/property characteristics, and medical facilities. Data regarding the characteristics of the dwelling selected after the completion of the search process were obtained from the main interview survey. Almost three-quarters of respondents lived in a single-detached home, while the remainder resided in apartments or condominiums. Five respondents resided in the 55+ living facility in Gimli named “The Waterfront Centre”, which offers apartments and life-lease units. In the Centre, occupants are afforded the opportunity to purchase the right to occupy a life-lease unit in the Centre for a specified period of time. Four other respondents occupied units in a condominium complex named “Aspen Park” also located in Gimli. The majority of survey respondents were owners of their properties. Slightly more than two-thirds of the sample lived with his/her spouse, while over a quarter were living alone. In addition, one respondent lived with her daughter, son-in-law and grandchild. Also, respondents who were not living with their spouse were widowed.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.